Get rid or rethink Amtrak

[Anonymous]

The economic competing Asian and European nations have high speed rail.....and its about time America does too..... We are running out of airspace near the major airports, thereby making it imperative that we invest in inter city rail..... A moratorium on federal highway and airport spending in two years could build an adequate starter high speed rail system in America of some 7,000 to 8,000 miles, enough to build high speed rail from the NEC to Chicago, to Texas, to Florida, and back to the NEC, along with a leg in California and a direct line from Chicago to Florida, all the way down to Miami, plus a few short lines to Montreal, Toronto, Detroit, and to Minneapolis, not to mention others....

Once this high speed network of tracks is built, we can easily spend less on new airports and highways, and we won't miss any of the construction during the next two years....

And I am talking about a true high speed rail network, the TGV/ICE capability of 186 mph..... making it possible to ride a train from New York City to Chicago in less than 5 hours, from Chicago to Dallas in less than 6 hours, from Houston to Atlanta in less than 6 hours, and from Atlanta to Washington DC in less than 5 hours....or from Chicago to Atlanta in less than 4 hours..... The ability to ride a train from LA to Oakland in less than 3 hours.....well 4 hours if they build it alongside Hwy 99 instead of I-5....

Use as much as possible rural interstate highway right of way, and either commuter or light rail right of way in the major cities....

Any scheduled passenger network whether air, sea, or land.....needs a subsidy.....They all do, everywhere......

The argument against funding Amtrak falls on this fact....

Just how long will the airllines last if they had to pay for airport terminals and parking garages......Not very long.....

Who would fly at first class rates? Not many.....

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by donclark

The economic competing Asian and European nations have high speed rail.....and its about time America does too..... We are running out of airspace near the major airports, thereby making it imperative that we invest in inter city rail..... A moratorium on federal highway and airport spending in two years could build an adequate starter high speed rail system in America of some 7,000 to 8,000 miles, enough to build high speed rail from the NEC to Chicago, to Texas, to Florida, and back to the NEC, along with a leg in California and a direct line from Chicago to Florida, all the way down to Miami, plus a few short lines to Montreal, Toronto, Detroit, and to Minneapolis, not to mention others....

Once this high speed network of tracks is built, we can easily spend less on new airports and highways, and we won't miss any of the construction during the next two years....

And I am talking about a true high speed rail network, the TGV/ICE capability of 186 mph..... making it possible to ride a train from New York City to Chicago in less than 5 hours, from Chicago to Dallas in less than 6 hours, from Houston to Atlanta in less than 6 hours, and from Atlanta to Washington DC in less than 5 hours....or from Chicago to Atlanta in less than 4 hours..... The ability to ride a train from LA to Oakland in less than 3 hours.....well 4 hours if they build it alongside Hwy 99 instead of I-5....

Use as much as possible rural interstate highway right of way, and either commuter or light rail right of way in the major cities....

Any scheduled passenger network whether air, sea, or land.....needs a subsidy.....They all do, everywhere......

The argument against funding Amtrak falls on this fact....

Just how long will the airllines last if they had to pay for airport terminals and parking garages......Not very long.....

Who would fly at first class rates? Not many.....

If New England wants a high speed rail network, then let New England pay for it, so on and so on. Most of the South, Midwest and Intermountain West is totaly dependent on highways for economic survival, and what you are proposing (a two year moratorium on highway funding) would do more to destroy the U.S. economy than if Osama Bin Laden was elected president.

Here's another thought: If there was a two year moratorium on highway funding, would that include a two year moratorium on gas taxes? Probably not.

Highways are paid for by user fees in the form of fuel taxes and truckers fees. Airports are paid for via ticket taxes, as well as some of the highway trust fund.

If you really want what you are suggesting, then we should start by slapping a 50 cent a gallon fuel tax on railroads to pay for it, and maybe a per container fee along with it.

Highway users pay for highways, airline users pay for airports, it is only fair that railroad users pay for new infrastructure.

The whole idea of forcing individuals onto mass transit went out with the 70's, because the basis of that ideal is totaly un-American. Individualism is the heart and soul of America, at least outside the NEC.

[PNWRMNM]

Mark Hemphill

Net present value calculations are part of almost any business investment decision, including railroad.

First notion is what is the value of a dollar at some point in the future, say 1 year say 10 years. This is big question if you are double tracking the transcon. The future value of a dollar is calculated by the formula 1/(1+r) where the 1+r term is raised to the power equal to the number of years. This value is the "present value factor and you can quickly calculate it in an Excell spreadsheet. You also need to determine what your discount rate, or required rate of return is. For a "safe" railroad project assume 15% pre tax.

Simple example: Should I invest $1 in a projcet that will return me 50 cents in each of the next three years;

Present cost =$1
Present value of 50 cents one year out .5/1.15 = 43.4 cents
" two

[PNWRMNM]

Ooops

two years .5/1.15*1.15= 37.8 cents
three = 32.8 cents

Sum =$1.14 This is a good project as I gain 14 cents

As the project time horizon gets longer, the present value factors of the out years get very small. In addition your confidence that the will be realized shrinks. The simple solution is to ignore cash flows beyond some cutoff time. I doubt the BNSF even considers cash flows longer than 30 years on the transcon, perhaps even less.

The nice thing about this analysis is that it is easy to evaluate a stream of unequal payments, which is why it is generally used.

Mac McCulloch

[Junctionfan]

I can't say for anybody else but myself but....

People don't mind spending the money unless they feel they aren't getting their money's worth. It is like paying taxes in Canada. Sure it is often regressive but we get to see our money work for us most of the time so people generally don't complain. However if they start seeing stuff go into stupid things, they scream "thief".

In Canada, the whole sponsership scandal is a good example of money spent on things that don't matter to Canadians and so the government has been forced into an inquiry and likely will face criminal charges from the RCMP. Because we have spent all that money on taxes, if the government screws up that bad, we throw them into the slammer or at least try to.

With all that said, people don't mind as much if the funds and fares of Amtrak, meet the service they get. For so far, I would expect that a lot of people have been disappointed and so they don't use it. Than there are those rail biggots who feed on the customer's bad experience and frighten off any other potential customers. Plain and simple, Amtrak and Congress must unveil a plan to repair Amtrak's reputation and put a spin on the rhetoric from the rail-biggots. If people can't be swayed into thinking that you can deliver and you are actually keeping your promises, ridership will be much higher in volume and so Amtrak will be able to pay for more of its costs. I don't know if that will stop their losses, but it should at least decrease the losses. Shouldn't it?

[Overmod]

Ye gods, Mr. Clark, are you going to wave a wand and build 8000 miles of TGV-capable track in two years? Either give me the wand or give me the pipe you're smoking!

In our present United States, the approvals, permits, and EQ impact studies would take at least 4 to 6 years, fast-tracked; then there are land acquisition costs, then there are construction costs. This might be reduced somewhat by using Interstate ROWs as you propose -- but the only 'practical' place to put the tracks would be in the median, which would involve fearful consequences if either vehicular or rail traffic suffer an 'incident', and would also require extensive revisions to bridges and drainage for the road network. There is a more important consideration: Interstate curvature, some of it intentionally provided to preclude 'highway hypnosis' or to optimize construction, is very often far too sharp to allow high-speed operation at the levels you anticipate.

Even with modern construction equipment and methods, a line with limited lateral curvature and properly-adjusted vertical curvature -- both of which are utterly essential to the high-speed operations you assume -- will be extremely difficult and co$tly across, say, the Alleghenies between New York and Chicago. Existing railroad rights of way (let me say this gently) are almost all worse than useless for your purposes. 'Tilting' trains can overcome track curvature issues up to a point -- that point being rapidly reached about 50mph shy of your 'goal' speed. Vertical-curve transitions are another thing altogether. As are railhead quality, lining and surfacing, and track lubrication at the required much higher incident forces. On top of that, there are safety and operating questions (at these speeds, I consider them in that order) regarding any other traffic on a conventional railroad. Can you say "no grade crossings"? Can you say "no trespassers"?

Dave, asking railroad companies to pay to subsidize passenger service would be like asking Delta to pay for improvements at the Federal Express hub in Memphis. Operating railroad companies rather dramatically exited the passenger business many years ago, including Southern Railway, and I have seen no particular excitement about getting back into it, even via the NEC. You would be much, much better off (imnsho) advocating a Federal "passenger fund" into which would be rolled all support for pax-carrying modalities (this itself would require extensive political "negotiations", but might be done) -- this, for example, would include the Federal highway funding for passenger cars (and the Highway Trust Fund accrued principal/interest and income derived from passenger cars and 'consumer' light trucks) and the pro-rata share of air improvements related to passenger flight movements (as opposed to cargo flights). Someone with experience or distinctive competence might be able to figure out the contribution of water transportation (ferries, some running substantial differences; I can't think of much more until the Fall River Line comes back!)

This at least would be fair -- but making railroads pay for it wouldn't be appropriate. THEY have neither interest nor mission in the plight of American passengers, and since the formation of Amtrak and demise of the ICC the Government has not been in much of a position to require them to be interested or concerned in the matter directly. That might change if 80/20 Federal funding were available for infrastructure improvement... but few, if any, of the true high-speed ROW modifications are particularly significant for freight operating economy -- even when conventional freight of *any* kind can be tolerated or even operated on its precise geometry and rather extreme maximum gradients. Why would a railroad pay 20% of the tens of billions required to put 8 to 10% grades across the Alleghenies?

Now, I'd be very interested to see what the operating profile of modern tilting passenger equipment on, say, the proposed Pennsylvania new main line of the late '20s would be. (In fact, I'd like to see detailed grade and construction-detail documentation for that proposal, if anyone has it). But the fact does remain that such lines weren't built extensively, and the ones that were (the Lackawanna cutoff being one example) aren't particularly optimized for high speed in the modern sense, although they should be perfectly fine for 120mph or so.

Note that I haven't discussed why trains don't immediately go 186mph when they leave stations, or maintain that full speed the whole way. But answer me this: Where does the bullet train between New York and Chicago stop en route? Kind of pointless to shut out everyone between those two points -- or make them have to backtrack the odd hundreds of miles to get on the supertrain to save a few hours. I can assure you that a resuscitated People Express with a bunch of 737s (or modern equivalent) can blow holes in THAT operating model, just by servicing any high-speed demand from all the intervening communities directly. And they can be operating as soon as the capital is allocated, and the desired number of terminal or hub gate slots arranged -- not after All That Up-Front Money is spent building the railroad in order to run the first train. Wanna place a bet about which represents a better use of capital or lifecycle energy consumption?

There are statistics available (I don't have the cites, but there are people on the forum that probably do) that indicate that intermediate high-speed rail consumes about six times the energy per passenger that a modern automobile running the same distance does. I believe that calculation was performed using the 'typical' average number of occupants per vehicle, which I would guesstimate as between 'one' and 'two', and an average of large and small automobiles. If there is no big savings on energy, what's the advantage to Americans over the use of aircraft ... which can be flexibly redirected, have greater per-hour capital utility, benefit from a wide network of common parts and service availability, and have considerably more resale utility than a TGV trainset.

(By the way, please explain to me why running up freeway 99 and then running across to the Bay Area would add a full hour or more to the LA/SF trip time at your given speeds. P.S., REAL high-speed trains to SF won't terminate in Oakland, any more than real high-speed trains to New York would terminate at Hoboken...)

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal
If New England wants a high speed rail network, then let New England pay for it, so on and so on. Most of the South, Midwest and Intermountain West is totaly dependent on highways for economic survival, and what you are proposing (a two year moratorium on highway funding) would do more to destroy the U.S. economy than if Osama Bin Laden was elected president.

Highways are paid for by user fees in the form of fuel taxes and truckers fees. Airports are paid for via ticket taxes, as well as some of the highway trust fund.

Highway users pay for highways, airline users pay for airports, it is only fair that railroad users pay for new infrastructure.

Not according to the Congressional Budget Office and DOT. Highway taxes cover 60% of the costs of highways. And they pay zippo for law enforcement, court costs, the $35 billion a year the people pay for highway crashes, pollution, et. al.

Dittos for airports. So-called "user fees" don't foot the bill either - paying only 45%, though that's what people are led to believe.

Rail tickets do pay a substantial portion of Amtrak's costs, accounting from 60-80%, according to the figures I can recall.

To add insult ot injury, the feds taxes passenger train travelers during the 60s to build airports and highways. Therefore, I see no problem adding a penny or two to the gas tax - and to airline tickets - to help bulid the rail infrastructure and improve passenger service, since rail travelers were forced to pay for highways and airlines.

Regarding New England having to build its own high-speed system. That's not the way this country bulids transportation systems.

High-speed rail is indeed something the feds should very appropriately get involved in, built and maintain, since it did so with high-speed highways and airways.

For Interstate highways, airports and almost any new freeway, the feds pay about 80% of the costs.
Rail should not be exempt from this.

These links, for those interested, provide an overview of how much $$ the feds invest in the competitors to rail- passenger AND freight.,

http://www.trainweb.org/moksrail/advocacy/resources/subsidies/transport.htm
http://www.trainweb.org/moksrail/advocacy/resources/essays/subsidies.htm

I don't mean to nit-pick but these myths and misperceptions about Amtrak need to come to a halt.

[Anonymous]

I'm reminded of C.S. Lewis' comment in "Mere Christianity" about being progressive. The first person to turn back the clock when it's realized that the wrong road is being taken is being progressive. He is going back to where he started so he can then take the better road.

Maybe this thinking about creating high-speed rail in America is a trip on the wrong road. I remember reading in Trains years ago that in Japan, despite the introduction of the bullet trains, a competing conventional overnight train using the old narrow gauge line and with a start-to-stop average speed of less than 40mph was heavily-used by travelers.

Maybe the right road (the optimal road when all factors are taken into consideration?) is a proverbial "train run with integrity at 60mph between Indy and Chicago". I recently drove from Wisconsin directly through Chicago and Cleveland to New England and back on interstate highways (55-75mph), and except for a construction zone hold-up (15 minutes) in Indiana southeast of Chicago, I experienced no appreciable delay. These interstate (mostly toll) highways were in good to excellent driving condition.

[Anonymous]

This is an interesting question. I unfortunatly live in greater MN where the only Amtrak train that even comes close to me is the Empire Builder, and the only time I can catch it is crazy early in the morning.

Now I don't live in a heavly populated area I know, so expanding service may not be feasible, however I would love to have a shorter distance train that would run from Fargo to Minneapolis but down BNSF's Morris and Wayzata subdivisions, maybe just 2 or 3 times a week. I know this probably will never happen, expecially since this state has a hard enough time getting light rail or the notherstar commuter rail to get off the ground (light rail has, northstar is coming???). But what a great mode of transit as opposed to driving to the cities and using my car, gas, cluttering the roads, etc...

[gabe]

If I had a dollar for every time someone in Indy told me how crowded the I-65 corridor is, how awful Chicago parking is, and that they would love to take the train if it would just run on time at a reasonable hour, I would be able to implement the proverbial "60mph train with integrity" myself.

I shouldn't complain too much though. As of late, it seems to me that some of the more ambitious Amtrak projects have had a great deal of State involvement. That is never going to happen in Indiana. Indiana hates to spend money. I love Hoosiers; but, if "penny wise and pound foolish" ever applied to a group of voters it is them.

So, I suppose I should be a more active voter before criticizing the fact that I-65 is too crowded and Amtrak doesn't run a competent train to meet an apparent demand.

Alas, it appears as the ennui is beginning to affect my outlook.

Gabe

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by gabe
[br ]Ifs of late, it seems to me that some of the more ambitious Amtrak projects have had a great deal of State involvement. That is never going to happen in Indiana. Indiana hates to spend money. I love Hoosiers; but, if "penny wise and pound foolish" ever applied to a group of voters it is them.

Gabe,
One thing I've noticed, the committment to rail is much less in rural, farm states.

IND is a very big farm state, like Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska and the Dakotas.

Those people don't see much use - or haven't been exposed to - for rail or any kind of transportation other than highways.

Government spending on anything other than the basics is considered evil.
They seem to think private enterprise is the answer for everything. When in fact, governmental investments in infrastructure, be it air, highway, sewer, water, electricity, education, etc., is what helps private industry expand and grow.

I say this having grown up in one of those farm states.

[gabe]

Ohlemeir,

I agree with your basic premise concerning views of government spending. However, I am not sure Indiana's use and exposure to passenger rail is really that miniscule.

I am not a native Hoosier, and one of the first thing that struck me when moving to Indiana is how every-day citizens regard the loss of the Monon Railway and Monon passenger service (it is not as if I go around anouncing I am a rail fan either). It is as if somone had shot their dog or something and never ceases to amaze me. Also, the northern part of the state has quite a bit of exposure to passenger rail. You should have heard the cry from South Bend when the South Shore Line threatened to take away passenger service.

Nonetheless, I think you are right. Hoosiers would much rather see such projects come from private enterprise than the government. I am not contending that is good or bad; just a way of looking at things. Arguing whether this is a good thing or a bad thing would just tend to get everyone dizzy. As discussed earlier, government subsidies to other forms of transportation muddy the contemplation of purely private rail travel to the point of obscurity.

Gabe

[SALfan]

One reason people in rural or semirural areas don't support increased passenger rail service is that driving isn't a huge hassle there. If you drove 100 miles miles from my hometown you would hit only one city, and not a huge or terribly congested one at that. Driving 100 miles there is no big deal. Driving 100 miles around the Washington, DC Beltway during daylight, or driving 100 miles on I-81 in the Shenandoah Valley, or driving 100 miles from Washington on I-95 is MUCH LESS fun than walking barefoot on broken glass. Give me a train any day!

[daveklepper]

I know it is way off base to say a modern auto is six times more fuel efficient than high speed rail . Why do I know? Because public transit, and this is an average over all, with light rail and subways being more efficient than bus, is rated ten times more efficient than private cars. Now, admittadly, public transit is not high speed. And high speed at steady running is less efficient than normal speed. But not sixty times less efficient. And probably not less efficient at all when compared the stop and start running of public transit.

Recently the federal budget people did a study comparing bus rapid transit with light rail and the study was deliberately slanted to favor bus rapid transit. Here is how they slanted it:

1. They included typical power company losses in transmission from power house to user, Typical, not modern best practice, not what is typical for distribution to rail and transit lines, but power company averages over all, including to houses, rural dwellings, etc. And then they did not count the fuel used to deliver diesel fuel to filling stations where the busses tank up.

2. They compared the most efficient modern highbred buses with industry average of all rail.

3. They overestimated reasonable capacity on hybrid articulated buses and drastically underestimated capacity of modern light rail cars.

I suspect even worse shenanagans in any study that says personal autos are six times more energy efficient per passenger than high speed rail. I'd say probably the reverse is true.

A paper given in Noise Control Engineering by European authors some 14 months ago stated that energy efficiency was one of several reasons most Euorpean countries are encouraging rail rather than highway development to meed increasing passenger transportation needs. Admittadly, USA rail passenger cars are heavier than European ones, but so are American autos heavier and less fuel efficient than the average Euorpean automobile.

I guess I have some homework to do to give you a definit reference on this question and I will get with it.

[Anonymous]

Gabe,
I'd think that passenger rail would be viewed as a mode of transport that's a lot more accessible to these rural areas than airports. The airport even in the major (top 30) metropolitan area I live in requires a 45 minute to an hour's drive.

Someone living in Dodge City, Kansas, or La Junta, Colorado, for example, for reasonable air fares, would have to drive at least 3 hours or more to reach an airport with decent service when Amtrak provides service to those cities' downtowns.

Now, I know one train a day isn't great service, but it's a start. A second frequency, running 12 hours later, would be good, add more travel options for the public and provide areas such as Hutchinson, Kansas, that only have trains between 2:00 a.m. and 5:00 a.m. needed train service..

Also, rural congressmen often seem more interested in securing subsidies for their agricultural interests while blasting susbsidies given to other industries and facets of U.S. daily life.

This isn't a slam at ALL rural district representatives, but some. Rural areas, of course, have their strengths and weaknesses, just like urban areas.

The one that used to represent me, when I lived in that big agricultural district, after receiving my letter on proper Amtrak funding had a staff member CALL ME AT HOME to tell me they took my suggestions into consideration.

[Anonymous]

A quick note from the Hoosier Cornyards in Knox, Indiana.
Remember, in Indiana if you go into a restaurant and ask to be seated in "no-smoking," they take the ashtray off your table. A problem for years with getting proper NICTD (South Shore Line passenger) funding has been that folks south of where I'm sitting just don't see a value in what they perceve as funding the commutation of secretaries to Chicago
from Hammond.
Mitch

[Overmod]

Daveklepper, keep in mind that I mean HIGH-speed rail -- TGV-class trains running under 'mandatory' 25kV catenary, and the like. Something I would very much like to see in the methodology of the 'six-times-a-car' study would be the effect of regenerative energy-storage, or 'peak-power buffers' like the UT MegaGen as used on locomotives, on the overall fuel efficiency.

The specific point I was trying to establish is that fuel economy is not a reason to envision construction of new 'ultraspeed' American mainlines, instead of additional highways or other systems that don't require the massive engineered infrastructure and severely limited use that a TGV-style new line would require.

Now, something to compare might be a combination of 'legacy' and new lines with mixed intermodal and passenger traffic, with TGV-compliant grades for ease in building but a maximum speed of something more conservative, say the FRA's 110mph. I note this still gives reasonable daily trip times between many city pairs, fuel consumption at that speed is dramatically lower, there would be plenty of 'emergency' reserve speed if needed for timekeeping or delay recovery (or, if need be, 'getting out of the way' of fast traffic more quickly).

This is, or was, the initial goal in many of the targeted rail corridors according to FRA priorities up to this spring. It has changed since then, I think in part because of the current Government dislike of passenger rail. I do think that in almost all respects the traveling public would find this kind of system more palatable than rocket trains going 'everywhere you aren't' and not stopping within a hundred miles of you... probably using time-tested Bombardier busted-flush-suspension heavy-as-lead technology?

[Anonymous]

I'd like to see CHI-Florida service, via INDY, restored. It could split in Nashville with one section going to ATLANTA and beyond to Florida and the other going on the Floridian route to Florida through Birmingham and Montgomery, with perhaps another section splitting at Montgomery for New Orleans, thus providing another needed route in the growing southeast.

OIf course, nothing remotely similar will ever happen unless more funds are provided to improve the tracks through Indiana. That's what hurt ridership on the KY Cardinal which was thoroughly ridiculed.

[Overmod]

Dave, was re-reading your post and another penny dropped:

Check your European noise-control reference to see if their 'energy-efficiency' criterion is related to the source of the energy. They may be describing the relative effectiveness of electric high-speed rail in reducing the need (and cost) of fossil fuel, in areas where alternative power (e.g. wind and nuclear) supply a meaningful amount of the traction electricity. On that basis, even a train using multiple times the effective kJ per passenger of an equivalent IC road vehicle could still be considered as 'using less energy resources' (insert other semantics or criteria as required) than that vehicle... or be seen as preferable to it on welfare-economic terms.

[Junctionfan]

Why did Amtrak stop service to Houston and Columbus anyways? What kind of reasoning did they use?

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan

Why did Amtrak stop service to Houston and Columbus anyways? What kind of reasoning did they use?

Reasoning schmeesoning, it was the BIG eraser of politics meh thinks.
Mitch

[Junctionfan]

QUOTE: Originally posted by artmark

QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan

Why did Amtrak stop service to Houston and Columbus anyways? What kind of reasoning did they use?

Reasoning schmeesoning, it was the BIG eraser of politics meh thinks.
Mitch

I thought so.....stupid politicians...[V]

[Junctionfan]

I wonder if it would be easier and maybe cheaper for Amtrak to invest in Alstom's Pendolino class tilting trains instead of thinking about using TGVs.

[Anonymous]

It seems to me that what Amtrack (slamtrack to some) needs is real spending as in major bucks. There are only three places that I know of that such funds may be obtained. (1) The federal government (they have funded railroads before) with a track record that is not the greatest for getting along. (2) Life Insurance Companies - They have their own problems or (3) A national lottery devoted only for the developemnt of the nations passenger rail and rail realted services only for the public usage in licensed open access. Just think of it America gets to enjoy a new and improved transportation system at the expense of the American People. Sounds a bit like taxes doesn't it

[RudyRockvilleMD]

Quote Rail tickets do pay a substantial portion of Amtrak's costs, accounting from 60-80%, according to the figures I can recall.

According to the AAR s booklet "Railroad Facts -2002 Edition" Amtrak's FY 2001 passenger revenue was somewhere around $1.3 billion while its total operating expenses were approximately $3.3 billion. That translates into a 40% farebox recovery rather than a 60 - 80% farebox recovery. I don't know offhand what its percentage farebox recoveries were for FY 2002 and 2003, but the 40% figure seems to be consistent with Amtrak's farebox recoveries for past fiscal years.

I'm going to have to go to Amtrak's web site and look up their FY 2002 and 2003 annual reports to see whether the percentage of farebox recoveries has improved over the last 2 - 3 years, but it's late, and I'm too lazy to do it now.

To me the question is not so much whether you get rid of Amtrak or rethink it, but what to do about rail passenger service in the US both long term and short term. The status quo is unsat; dtto for throwing a lot of money at the problem.
.





.

[Anonymous]

Highways are already being delayed, due to a lack of federal and state funds, mainly because the gas tax per gallon hasn't gone up to reflect the inflation rate lately..... In Texas, the state is turning to building new toll roads to build its new highways....

I'm convinced that we would be better off building a starter network of high speed rail, some 7-8,000 miles, than rebuilding any urban freeway..... Keep in mind that federal highway spending is for new highways, or rebuilt highways.....not for repaving current roads....The state maintains the roads....and I'm not cutting that funding...... Adding another two years is nothing.....the state of Texas is delaying new highways a decade or more already......

I'll post my map again.... Notice that Indy will be served with a line between Chicago and Atlanta.....and on to Florida.....

Speed is very important.... allowing any railroad operator the ability to run with much more frequency.... For example, Amtrak operates 3 trains to serve a daily on the Texas Eagle in each direction.... It takes up to 22 hours to serve Dallas to Chicago, an overnight train, very similar to the trains Amtrak operates between Chicago and Dallas..... Cut that time to 6 hours, and Amtrak can operate 4 daily trains in each direction..... 900 miles divided by 150 mph, not 186 mph, is 6..... a whole lot better than 1 every day......

[Anonymous]

It wasn't long ago that people would argue that the airlines could make money just moving freight.... Notice that most airlines are now having problems turning a profit, even though their freight business is stable..... It takes both passengers and freight to turn a profit... The railroads never turned a profit moving just passengers, the railroads back in their hey day moved the mail too.....

Interesting, two major 
package delivery companies are interested in faster ground transportation....UPS and FedEx..... Build a high speed rail network connecting major hub cities, and you'll find these two companies supplying freight......especially concerning the increase frequency factor.....

With high speed rail, there would be no need to run a train overnight, except for a transcontinental over the Rockies to the west coast from either the Midwest or Southwest (Chicago and either Dallas/Houston)....

[Anonymous]

How about an auto train to the West Coast? How about more dome cars fo those who care about the scenery? How about more bar cars for those who don't care about where they are? Sell more cigars, etc. and make some money. We've already trains that smoked at the front, so now they can smoke at the back end. We need commuter lines that meet the trains and take to other locations on the west coast in particular. We need commuter lines that run down the medians of city expressways so that they have free advertising for the people stuck in traffic. The trains have to try and take 'em where they want to go when they want to get there.

[daveklepper]

This matter about a report that states that the private auto is six times more fuel efficient than high speed rail . How did they arrive at the figure? Simple. They included the fuel required to BUILD the high speed rail line and assumed the highway already existed. That is the explanation! I forgot to ask how long the fuel required to build was assigned, but I assume normal accounting practice would say 20 years.

[Overmod]

Dave, where'd you find the report, and what's the URL?

Playing devil's advocate for a moment: their assumption DOES have the advantage of being completely accurate for today's situation ... as most of the roads do exist, the high-speed lines don't, and the lion's share of the equipment used to build railroads runs on liquid fossil fuel.

Perhaps a reasonable argument to decouple the construction cost from operating cost (at least politically -- which I suspect would be the operative assessment method) would be to have the Government and private entities assure an appropriate amount of biodiesel production and distribution to cover what's needed for the new-line construction as it is implemented. Subsidies, SBIR/STTR grants, licensed technology from ORNL, etc., including grants, e.g. for things like fuel-stabilization treatment, that can cover some of the provision costs of "distribution equipment" -- filling stations and delivery trucks, etc.

Once that's in progress, it would be possible to require use of some percentage of 'renewable-resource-derived' fuel on the high-speed line construction -- heck, while we're doing this, on any Federal-matching-funds capital construction. If this gives Exxon Mobil, BP and the rest an excuse to get into either blended or full biodiesel, don't expect me to complain. (Note that this is separate from either fuel synthesis or tar-sands recovery). I'm tempted to give this a name with a cute acronym, like Environmentally Good Zero-Added-Carbon Technology. ;-}

With respect to higher utilization of the equipment: An interesting possibility here would involve the use of advanced purchase tickets (including e-tickets billed to credit cards) to schedule 'extra' trains. If Amtrak has the capability to run 4 trains per day in a corridor where demand only 'requires' one, the four schedule slots are assigned, but the daily train only operates in the most 'convenient' of these -- that's the train that 'walk-on' passengers know will be there on time. If enough tickets have been paid for by the appropriate 'sailing time' for a train in another 'slot' (or the time needed to launch a balancing move to have a trainset at the right section of the line to run such a movement), that train will then operate (and be promoted as such) -- the cutoff perhaps representing either an appropriate percentage of the marginal operating expenses or politically-acceptable minimums (note that shortfall could then be attributed to marketing expenses, etc. in a private company, at least over a reasonable frame of time). The usual shenanigans with incremental seat auctions, standby boarding rates, etc. would apply as soon as the train makes quota, the principle being to recover more than the marginal cost of transporting the extra passenger mass or accommodating an extra stop or two.

If the service take rate actually comes up to the point where quotas are regularly met on at least one leg of an equipment cycle, the 'reverse move' could be subsidized. Danger here is that discounting would siphon off potential patrons from trains in other dayparts; there are ways to assess this and address compensation.

I do think that it'll be a mix of timing, amenities, and service and comfort that would make these services successful. Quite simply, something with these fixed expenses and highly-capitalized track and infrastructure systems will not be 'competing' with discount airlines and the like by providing 'equivalent' services -- there has to be a mix of service and experience, and I might add a mix that creates return business, not something that gets a bunch of one-time riders who talk about how nice it was but don't go back.

Steve Crumbaugh is ringing the right kinds of bells. If we have the right high standards for the high-speed trains, we need comparable standards for all the infrastructure and provisions for "passenger handling" at what have come to be called the 'interfaces' where passengers leave fast rail to go to their ultimate destinations. These quite often WON'T be conventional "commuter" trains, and it's interesting to brainstorm on exactly what they might contain in addition to the capability of accommodating rush-hour travel. Don's argument does apply to All Those Commuter Cars sitting idle between rush hours...

With regard to freight: I'm still not convinced that early support for the network proposal will come from these entities. Keep trying to make it happen however.